HOW were “these things” fulfilled?

200 5. Notice these texts especially: a. Matt 24:9-14 – “tribulation” here applies ONLY to the Christians, and seems to refer to the intensification of the persecution under Nero b. Matt 24:22-28 – returns to talking about the “tribulation” upon the Church – compare the language here in this section with the language in Matt 24:9-14.

6. Do you see the connection? They are both talking about the tribulation upon the Christians.

Therefore, Matt 24:29 HAS TO INCLUDE the Neronic persecution in its definition of “tribulation” since that is what the previous verses (22-28) are talking about. It was “those days” (Neronic persecution) that were cut short for the saints, so that the “elect” could be rescued. 7. Notice that Christ had already stated in the previous context that He would “save” them from the tribulation by “cutting short” the tribulation. But the wrath-outpouring was not “cut short” for the Jews. It continued until Jerusalem was totally devastated. So, it must be some other tribulation that was cut short, besides the wrath-outpouring. That could be the tribulation upon the church, such as the Neronic persecution. 8. But that raises another question: How could the tribulation on the Christians be said to be

“cut short” (or ended) if the Christians were still left around on earth while the wrath was being poured out? That means they would still be subject to persecution and tribulation. What kind of “salvation” or “rescue” would that be? Nor would it fit Jesus’ description of the angelic gathering of the elect mentioned in Matt 24:31. 9. Notice all the references to “cut short” (24:22) and “saved” (24:13, 22). This is not talking about the saints finally getting forgiveness of sins given to them when the tribulation was cut short!

They already had forgiveness of sins. So, what was this “cutting short” of the tribulation which

“saved” the elect? How was their tribulation cut short, and how were they saved from it? We already know how Paul would answer that (“rescues us from the coming wrath” - 1 Thess 1:10). And Jesus does not leave us guessing either. Notice Matt 24:31. At the Parousia He sent forth his angels to gather the elect (the remaining living saints) out of harm’s way before he poured out the wrath on the Jews.

Conclusion: We looked at the chart (Chronological Arrangement of the Olivet Discourse) which arranges all the events predicted in Matthew 24 in their proper historical sequence. By doing that, we are able to define what the Tribulation was, and when it occurred in relation to the Parousia and the Wrath outpouring upon the unbelieving Jews. By putting all these events in the order in which they actually occurred historically, it really helps us understand both the Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation.

When we ask the HOW question, we are dealing with the NATURE of fulfillment. Most of the time in our interaction with futurists, we focus only on the TIME of fulfillment, and never quite get around to explaining the NATURE of fulfillment. Part of the reason for that may be that we simply do not have a clear grasp of HOW these things were actually fulfilled historically. That is why we all need to get a better grip on first century history. We need to know not only WHEN these things occurred, but HOW they occurred. History provides both the timing and the nature of fulfillment.

So, before getting into the actual history of the Jewish revolt in AD 66-70, we need to know what KIND of events the first century saints were expecting to happen in their lifetime. What were they looking for, and expecting to see, hear, and experience in that generation? We have the TIMING of those events pretty well nailed down at this point, but the NATURE of those events is still very fuzzy for a lot of us.

201

We need to know HOW these things actually happened historically. What was their NATURE of fulfillment? When this material was originally presented at two different seminars in Chicago and Garrettsville, I included a video clip from an atheist who posted a five-part series on YouTube entitled, Jesus Was Wrong. Using several of the TIME statements, especially in Mark 13 and its parallels in Matthew 24 and Luke 21, he showed how Jesus clearly predicted His return in that first century generation, and that since Jesus did not return then as he promised, he has to be labeled a false prophet.

As you can imagine, that YouTube video created a firestorm of reaction from both futurists and preterists. But he came right back in his second and following podcasts showing that futurists are hopelessly out of touch with reality by saying that the return of Jesus is still future. If Jesus didn’t come then in the first century, as He promised He would, then He is a false prophet and Christianity is founded on a hoax.

The atheist was much kinder to the preterists who responded to his first video. He gave a thumbs up to preterists for recognizing the significance of the TIME statements. However, he sharply criticized preterists for taking a spiritualizing approach to the NATURE of fulfillment.

He read several of the New Testament eschatological statements which show what the first century saints expected to see, hear and experience at the Parousia, and then made the point that there are no statements coming from any of those saints after AD 70 saying that they actually saw, heard, and experienced those things. To the atheist, that failure to document the fulfillment afterward means only one thing: NON-OCCURRENCE and NON-FULFILLMENT. He accused preterists of spiritualizing the fulfillment in order to get around the problem of non-fulfillment.

So this is the place where the Preterist view runs the most risk of being rejected by our fellow Christians. It is easy for Futurists to grasp the TIMING issue, but they immediately want to know HOW this was fulfilled in the first century, and they want to see the documentation for that fulfillment.

Showing that AD 70 was the correct TIME of fulfillment is only half of our task. We also need to show HOW those things were actually fulfilled in the way those first century saints were expecting. That automatically raises the question about their expectations. We need to know: What did Jesus promise them that they would see, hear, and experience at His Parousia? and, What did they say they were expecting to see, hear, and experience at His Parousia?

Here are the two texts that the atheist used to make his point about the non-fulfillment of their expectations (Matt. 24:25-27 and Matt. 24:30):

Matt. 24:25-27 “Behold, I have told you in advance. So if they say to you, ‘Behold, He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out, or, ‘Behold, He is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe them. For just

as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be.

Matt. 24:30 “And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son Of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory.

He showed that in these two texts Jesus promised that His return would be so easy to SEE that they could not miss it. They would not have to go out into the wilderness, or into an upper room to find Him. They would SEE him coming on the clouds with power and great glory, just as the lightning flashes across the sky.

He repeatedly stressed the point that the return of Christ was going to be a VISIBLE event, and therefore an experienced event. Since he is not aware of anything like that occurring in the first century, he assumes that Christ did not return, and that the prophecies failed. He says that Preterists are proven wrong precisely at this point because we cannot show a visible and experiential return of Christ in the first century.

I agree that it is not enough to affirm that the TIME of fulfillment was in the first century. Deut.

202 18:22 demands that there be a recognizable fulfillment of those prophecies before we can claim that it has come true. The first century Christians (at least) should have been aware of the occurrence of the Parousia. They were told that they would SEE it. Since the post-70 church did not acknowledge Christ’s return as having occurred in AD 70, it puts a huge burden of proof upon the Preterist.

This is a serious historical problem that we Preterists have been very slow and reluctant to deal with. We usually just wave our magic spiritualizing wand over the prophecy and claim it was fulfilled in a covenantal or spiritual or metaphysical sense, and then pat ourselves on the back for being so creative.

But that approach is not satisfactory to that atheist on YouTube, nor is it satisfactory to our Futurist brothers who also know that the fulfillment had to be VISIBLE and EXPERIENTIAL. It was this very problem which forced me (kicking and screaming) to re-examine my concepts on the NATURE of fulfillment. My first step was to re-read the whole New Testament asking these three questions:

1. Did Jesus actually promise them that they would see, hear, and experience anything at His coming? 2. Do the NT writers make any statements which tell us what their expectations were? Did they expect to see, hear, or experience anything at His coming? 3. Or does Jesus indicate that it would be a non-experiential event, which they would not see with their eyes, nor hear with their ears, nor experience in any cognitive way?

On the next page we will see what I discovered when I read through the whole New Testament: